Peer review

In order to ensure a high scientific level and the quality of articles published in the collection of scientific papers "Economic Innovations", all manuscripts that come to the editorial board are mandatory to be reviewed.

The review process in the collection of scientific papers "Economic Innovations" is based on the following principles:

- correctness and ethics of scientific publications. The editorial board of scientific papers "Economic Innovation" provides suitable means to ensure that the review procedure supports the processes of quality improving of scientific researches, and also takes into account the requirements of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), considers the experience and follows to the best practices of leading editorial and scientific communities , helps to overcome bias and increase objectivity during the considering and publishing of submitted articles;

- anonymity. The editorial board uses a double-blind peer review in its work. Authors are not informed about the names of the Reviewers, Reviewers are not informed of the names of the Authors. The interaction between the reviewers and the authors is carried out only through the authorized members of the editorial board. The editorial staff shall not disclose to anyone information related to the manuscript (content, review process, critical remarks of the Reviewers, final decision), except for the members of the editorial board of the Collection, the Author(s) and the Reviewers themselves. Reviews are submitted only to authorized members of the editorial board of the Collection and to the Author(s);

- openness. The reviewing processes are transparent and are carried out in the general rules for all authors and reviewers that are openly accessible on this site. The editorial board of the collection of scientific papers "Economic Innovations" provides open access (according to the policy of Open Access) to the materials of scientific articles, which have been reviewed, published and are set out on the website of "Economic Innovations";

- immediacy. The term of the review of manuscripts of scientific articles in the collection of scientific papers "Economic Innovations" do not exceed 2 weeks.

The process of reviewing and considering of the materials of scientific articles is provided in the collection of scientific papers "Economic Innovations" according to the following rules:

1. Manuscripts of scientific articles, which come to the editorial board, are being initially controlled on compliance with all formal requirements to the subject, scientific profile, content, structure, volume and order of design according to the requirements for submission that are published on the "Economic Innovations" site. In case of non-compliance with formal requirements, the materials of the articles can be immediately returned to the authors for revision in order to bring them in proper condition.

2. Next, the manuscript of the article is checked for plagiarism.

3. If the article does not correspond to the subject of the journal and/or to the permissible percentage of the uniqueness of the text, the author is reported about the rejection of manuscript in order to be refined.

4. After the initial check of the manuscript of the article is finished positively and after the plagiarism control is passed, the manuscript is sent for review.

5. The editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) defines for the article a reviewer-expert (doctor of economics) that have corresponding specialization in the field of the article’s research and is a well-known specialist in this area, has appropriate publications on such topics (preferably during the last 5 years). The reviewer is either elected from the members of the editorial board or is an external reviewer.

6. In the collection of scientific papers "Economic Innovations" a bilateral blind (anonymous) review is applied:

- the author's / authors' personal data is not disclosed to the reviewer;

- The author / authors are not informed about the personal data of the reviewer.

7. Based on the results of an expert evaluation of scientific article, the reviewer may:

- recommend the article to publication as-is;

- recommend the article to publication after it’s the refinement by the author, according to the comments and proposals of the reviewer;

- recommend the article to publication only after radical rework;

- not to recommend article to publication.

8. If the reviewer recommends the article to publication after it’s the refinement by the author, according to the comments and proposals, the reviewer must justify the reason for such decision. To prepare the results of the review, the editorial board of the collection of scientific papers "Economic Innovations" uses the standard form of the review.

9. The reviewer estimates:

- the urgency and importance of the scientific problem raised in the article, on the compliance of the manuscript with the subject of the collection;

- the consistency, and the logic, the level of language proficiency when presenting the material of the article;

- the conformity of the contents of the manuscript with its title, with selected approaches to the study and with the goals and objectives;

- the validity of conclusions based on the results of the research and the degree of their scientific novelty;

- the theoretical and applied value of the performed research;

- the reliability, relevance of the data used and of the information sources;

- the correctness of the given mathematical calculations, graphs, pictures, the quality of visualization of the research results;

- the authors' compliance with the rules of scientific ethics, the correctness of references to literary sources.

- the necessary element of the review is the reviewer's assessment of the author's personal contribution to the solving of the considered problem.

- it is advisable to note in the review the advantages and disadvantages found in the manuscript of the article, in order to provide the author with recommendations for improvement, deepening of the study on this topic or disclosing of new aspects of the considered scientific problem.

10. Authors of manuscripts of scientific articles must be informed about the results of the reviewing via e-mail addresses, which are specified in the authors’ personal data.

11. Scientific articles may be referred for re-review after their radical revision, conducted on recommendations of the reviewer.

12. Articles may be referred, if necessary, to additional review in case of acute discussion concerning the scientific results expressed in the manuscript.